Madras High Court Directs Disciplinary Action Against District Collector For Remaining Ex-Parte In Civil Suit, Allowing Decree To Be Passed Over Government Land
Safiya Malik
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, Single Bench of Justice N. Senthilkumar, directed the Principal Secretary of the Revenue and Disaster Management Department to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the District Collector of Ramanathapuram for remaining absent in a civil suit concerning Government Natham Poramboke land, which resulted in an ex parte decree being passed against the government. The court observed that the government, as custodian of public land, cannot remain passive when valuable property is subject to litigation, and that failure of responsible officers to contest such suits seriously affects public interest.
The dispute concerned a property classified as Government Natham Poramboke land, including a Natham Poramboke vacant site. A civil suit was filed seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the said property. The District Collector and the Tahsildar of Rameswaram Taluk, Ramanathapuram District, were arrayed as defendants in the suit. Both officials remained absent throughout the proceedings, resulting in an ex parte decree being passed against the government in March 2001.
Subsequently, applications were filed seeking condonation of a delay of 384 days and to set aside the ex parte decree. These applications were dismissed in June 2004, and the government did not challenge the dismissal before any higher forum. The matter came before the High Court by way of a Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking to set aside the ex parte decree passed by the Subordinate Court, Ramanathapuram.
The Court observed that “the suit property is classified as Government Natham Poramboke land, including Natham Poramboke vacant site.” It further recorded that “the suit was filed seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the said property.”
The Court noted that “the District Collector, Ramanathapuram, was arrayed as the first defendant and the Tahsildar, Rameswaram Taluk, Ramanathapuram District, was arrayed as the second defendant” and that “both of them remained ex parte, and an ex parte decree came to be passed on 09.03.2001.”
While examining the affidavit placed before it regarding the steps taken by the authorities, the Court recorded that “the entire exercise undertaken by the Government pertains only to initiating action against the Tahsildar and the then Government Pleader.” The Court also noted that “there is absolutely no reference to any action proposed or initiated against the District Collector, who was arrayed as the first defendant and had also remained ex parte.”
Addressing the submission made on behalf of the State, the Court stated that “while such a submission may apply where evidence is actually let in on behalf of the Government, it cannot justify the inaction on the part of the District Collector in a case where he was a party to the suit and remained ex parte.”
The Court also recorded that “applications in I.A. Nos.33 and 34 of 2004 were filed to condone the delay of 384 days and to set aside the ex parte decree, which were dismissed on 14.06.2004” and that “the Government has not challenged the dismissal of the said applications before the higher forum.”
Considering the broader implications, the Court stated that “the Government, being the custodian of public land, cannot remain a mute spectator when valuable Government property is the subject matter of litigation.” It further recorded that “failure of responsible officers to contest such suits seriously affects public interest.”
The Court directed that “the fourth respondent, viz., the Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, to initiate appropriate disciplinary proceedings against the District Collector, Ramanathapuram, who remained ex parte in O.S. No.6 of 2001, and proceed in accordance with law.”
“The Government to issue a comprehensive Government Order prescribing clear guidelines for all Government Pleaders and Revenue Officials across the State, specifying (i) their duties and responsibilities in civil suits filed against the Government; (ii) mandatory steps to be taken when Government officials are set ex parte; (iii) time lines for filing written statements, applications to set aside ex parte orders, appeals, and petitions for condonation of delay; and (iv) disciplinary consequences for dereliction of duty.”
“The Government shall consider constituting a Legal Cell in every Taluk, to be monitored by the District Collector, District Revenue Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer”, and that “the Legal Cell, headed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, shall periodically review all civil cases in which the Government is a party and ensure that appropriate steps are taken in a timely manner. Periodical reports shall be forwarded to the Commissioner of Land Administration to the Additional Chief Secretary to Government. The above exercise shall be completed and appropriate Government Orders shall be issued within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”
“The Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, shall file a status report before this Court within a period of four (4) months from today, indicating the number of cases within the jurisdiction of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, in which the Government has remained ex parte and the steps taken to set aside such ex parte orders.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Ms. T. Sivashree for Mr. J. Barathan
For the Respondents: Mr. Veerakathirava, Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. P. Thambidurai, Government Advocate (Crl. Side); Ms. P. Jessi Jeeva Priya
Case Title: Sethumadhavan and Another v Sigamani and Others
Case Number: CRP(MD) No.111 of 2026
Bench: Justice N. Senthilkumar
